Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

Nasa states that the moon is being hit by 2,8 tons of debree daily...and most of that is apparently micro meteors.

i dont know if that is true but 2.8 tons of debris is not alot considering the surface area of the moon..

the moon has a surface area of about 38million square kilometers.

so we are talking about 0.07 grams per square kilometer per day..

also spacesuits are designed to protect against micrometeroids.

a reply to: choos

Plus, even more natural space debris (micrometeors/dust, etc) hits the Earth everyday, yet we still have functioning satellites and manned spacecraft in orbit -- and sometimes people in space suits.

Those satellites, spacecraft, and space walkers are not normally affected by that material being sucked in by Earth's gravity.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
What was the plan..? Go and hope for the best ?

I know you guys are cowboys, but that sounds rather risky.

I suppose there is risk involved in the endeavor of space exploration, but the people involved know the risks and the missions are designed to minimize those risks. The Apollo missions were even riskier, especially the first few, but that';s why the first Apollo astronauts were test pilots.

Test piloting in the 1960 was a very dangerous profession (arguably as dangerous as the Apollo missions), and those test pilots/astronauts were accustomed to taking calculated risks.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Would be good to have a source for that figure of 2.8 tonnes, but as pointed out it isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things. Astronauts are small, the moon is big, there is much more chance of a small piece of rock not hitting an astronaut than hitting one.

The Apollo suits could actually take the damage as they contained a micro-meteoroid garment, and if anything they were far more concerned about this potential hazard than anything else. Several of the missions had specific experiments to look at the potential impact of them in the context of post-Apollo missions.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

After they discovered that they needed to carry ~1000 pounds of water to cool the astronauts they redesigned the Apollo pressure vessel to save weight. That meant pressurizing the capsule to only 4.8 PSI and compensating by making the Astronauts breath almost pure oxygen..

How thick would the capsule walls be after they were shaved down and could not withstand a pressure of over 5 psi with a safety margin? Old water heaters can split at a pressure of roughly 10 times that after 20 years of reliable service.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Do you have a source for any of the statements you just made?

a reply to: captainpudding

The statistics came from NASA HQ they were posted a page ago.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Who says NASA doesn't have a sense of humor!

Moon buggy


From this scene

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Would be good to have a source for that figure of 2.8 tonnes, but as pointed out it isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things. Astronauts are small, the moon is big, there is much more chance of a small piece of rock not hitting an astronaut than hitting one.

The Apollo suits could actually take the damage as they contained a micro-meteoroid garment, and if anything they were far more concerned about this potential hazard than anything else. Several of the missions had specific experiments to look at the potential impact of them in the context of post-Apollo missions.

There isn't really a firm figure but 2.8 tons is within reason as a guesstimate. Estimates for space debris impacting the Earth range from 5 to 300 tons a day and the moon will get less due to smaller size and mass so scale that down.

Most of that 2.8 tons would be dust, which the suits can handle and I would expect the suits got hit by space dust without any problem. There are rare particles which are larger. NASA observes the moon for flashes caused by the larger impacts and had one of those struck an astronaut it could have caused problems. There were lots of risks on the Apollo missions and that was one of them.

a reply to: Cauliflower

The '1000 lbs of water' figure isn't on the link you posted. Most of the water on the missions was produced in flight by the fuel cells, which ran off oxygen and hydrogen and made water as a waste product. The same water acted as part of the cooling system.

You also have things slightly backwards - the decision to reduce the atmospheric pressure by using pure O2 allowed them to make massive weight savings both in terms of what they needed to take with them and the structural requirements of the CSM cabin. The CSM atmosphere may have been pure O2, but the pressure it was at matched sea level O2 partial pressures in the lung.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: onebigmonkey

After they discovered that they needed to carry ~1000 pounds of water to cool the astronauts they redesigned the Apollo pressure vessel to save weight.

are you basing this ~1000 pound estimate on the PLSS holding 12 pounds of feedwater that is sufficient for 8 hours of strenuous work??

if you are, you are suggesting that the two astronauts on the lunar surface are doing 24/7 strenuous days of work for 14 days straight..

also, you need to re-evaluate this comment because your source says otherwise.

With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.

thin walls wasnt because of your claim that they needed ~1000 pounds of water..

Hollywood has been putting out the message that there are secrets/disclosures on the moon. Apollo 18. Transformers. Interstellar.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I think this guy missed the point of the clip. He is an astonaut who was put in charge of the school after they land on a new planet. It was essentially making fun of of people that try to change school curriculums on unfounded beliefs. They used this instead of creation. It's an attempt to show what schools have to deal with where parents believe they are right.

Guessing you Havnt seen the movie have you. Because if you had you wouldn't post it because ironically it makes the woman out to be crazy.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

a question

This guy from Nasa says so.


So...it was strictly down to..."let's hope for the best".


Somehow....this crazy courage is lost on the todays space programs.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Fair enough

In some respects that's what Apollo did - hope for the best. They planned for everything they could think of and minimised the risks that they could manage within the confines of trying to save time weight and fuel, but for some things you just have to cross your fingers.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Everytime i place a bet on United...i cross my fingers and hope for the best...somehow its not working for me

My god has abandoned me

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Hollywood has been putting out the message that there are secrets/disclosures on the moon. Apollo 18. Transformers. Interstellar.

Yep, as metioned in the first post of this thread this is exactly what they are doing.

"I believe it's drip feeding the public the truth."

How many problems have they had in recent times with the space suits which they didn't have nearly 50 years earlier.

"NASA said engineers were concerned about a recurring issue with a piece of equipment known as the fan pump separator, part of the spacesuit’s temperature control system.

“That is the same area of concern we had back in 2013 when we had the issue of the water in the helmet,” said Kenneth Todd, International Space Station operations and integration manager, in a briefing with reporters.

The 2013 flaw allowed water to build up inside European astronaut Luca Parmitano’s helmet while he was doing a space walk, and could have drowned him. He was quickly helped back inside the space station and soon recovered."

Source:www.news.com.au...

So in 2014/2015 astronauts are experiencing life threatening problems with space suits completing mundane low intensity operations, yet half a decade ago there were no problems with the suits when the 'astronauts' performed ridiculous antics like this.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
as pointed out it isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things

without going into too much detail,, there is insufficient reliable information on the lunar meteorite phenomenon, including their quantities & proportions or how impact consequences will influence the lunar enviroment, - let alone micro-meteorites,,
the absence of this data exposes the propagandists cognitive process

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
as pointed out it isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things

without going into too much detail,, there is insufficient reliable information on the lunar meteorite phenomenon, including their quantities & proportions or how impact consequences will influence the lunar enviroment, - let alone micro-meteorites,,
the absence of this data exposes the propagandists cognitive process

No, I think tou'll find there is quite a large amount of data on lunar impacts and their frequency, as well as the importance of micro-meteorites. The fact that you can't find it says more about your level of understanding on this subject and your ability to find and understand relevant material. It seems to me that what you actually mean is "I don't like the sources of information".

You would do well to focus less on how you imagine people you disagree with are thinking and what their motives are and more on producing actual information that proves your point.

You can't say 'there isn't any information on this' and then draw conclusions based on the information you claim isn't there.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

the moon hoax theorists conclusions have been vindicated time & time again ,so I dont wish to assign any undue burden upon any particular individual,,,,but,,suffice it to say,,& I will paraphrase....

"No one knows exactly how abundant the meteorites that impact the Moon every day are, thats what we are trying learn "...

the propagandist can spin it however they want but its simply speculation

originally posted by: ppk55
So in 2014/2015 astronauts are experiencing life threatening problems with space suits completing mundane low intensity operations, yet half a decade ago there were no problems with the suits when the 'astronauts' performed ridiculous antics like this.

you are grasping at straws..

as another example the concorde was introduced in 1976 doing commercial flights for 27 years.. right up until year 2000 it was arguably the safest airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometre..

and then one was brought down on takeoff, yet prior to that it was arguably one of the safest air-liners...

p.s. do you know what half a decade is??

originally posted by: Misinformation

the propagandist can spin it however they want but its simply speculation

which is exactly what you are trying to do.. you calling yourself a propagandist??